Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: paul Fultz (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-06 00:16:34

> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > AMDG
> 
> On 03/05/2016 07:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> 
>>  I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of Steven
>>  Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits better
>>  in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.
>> 
> 
> When I mentioned Boost.Config, I was talking about
> things like
> 
> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE
> #ifdef _MSC_VER
> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 1
> #else
> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 0
> #endif

> #endif

This is can be configurable, whereas Boost.Config it is not. 

> 
> or
> 
> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS
> #if (defined(__GNUC__) && !defined (__clang__) && __GNUC__ == 4 
> &&
> __GNUC_MINOR__ < 7)
> #define BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS 0
> #else
> #define BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS 1
> #endif

> #endif
>

This could be replaced with Boost.Config, however, I have ran into problems before with template aliases on gcc 4.7, so I wanted to make this configurable as well, although it could fallback onto Boost.Config right now.

> In Christ,
> 
> Steven Watanabe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>